6

There were 2 major reasons for capturing Saddam:

  • Possessing WMDs (Never proved completely)
  • Killing Shias by Chemical Weapons

In the neighbourhood of same Iraq, Bashar Al Assad has been doing exactly the same to Sunni/Christians by using both Chemical Weapons and Barrel bombs (which are banned by UN - correct me if wrong).

On the other hand, US proclaims it is Anti-Assad and all that crap, so why it has spared Assad to date and Saddam was captured?

NOTE

I would appreciate if there would be some research before posting an answer. Those who are still living in ISIS hoax are suggested to read following three articles, two by Kenneth Roth (Ex Director, Human Rights Watch) and one by Dr. Annie Sparrow of Mount Sinai Hospital

  1. Syria: What Chance to Stop the Slaughter?
  2. Barrel Bombs, not ISIS are major threat
  3. The Ethical Cleansing of OCHA in Syria

UPDATE

Many commentators and couple of answers have pointed out the change in regime in US and Obama following a different policy to Bush, but under the same president, there has been an invasion in Libya. Needless to mention their Drone policy

  • 3
    Well there's the fact that the campaign in Iraq went poorly, and the situation in Syria happened shortly after that campaign. – Sam I am May 24 '16 at 17:51
  • 1
    Note the difference in character between the two presidents of the United States that were in charge at the time. – sabbahillel May 24 '16 at 18:23
  • 5
    There has been an invasion in Libya If there are no troops, there is no invasion... Really, you are not asking a question but making an statement and modifying it when you do not like the answers. – SJuan76 May 25 '16 at 8:33
  • 2
    I agree with you on Human Right's watch. Assad's killed more people since Obama took office than anyone else in the world, but that's not the only factor in staging an invasion. The difficulty, the proximity of American bases, the number of American lives that might be lost, the popularity of the event and the length (over 60 days needs congress approval), the stability of the region after pulling out are all factors. I find it tragic that nothing was done to aid the anti Assad forces, but it was also a very difficult situation especially Russia an ally of Assad. – userLTK May 27 '16 at 22:38
  • 2
    @jamesqf Well, I agree with you that terrorism is a unclear and contested concept, but so is jihad. Do you have any resources of Saddam, who was an atheist himself, supported "jihad" (whatever you mean by that) that goes beyond the embracing of Sunni groups by allowing more religious practices in Iraq as a means to consolidate his rule - dīvide et īmpera. Remember there were Shia and Kurd uprisings before the start of his Faith campaign, so this turn was a calculated move to broaden his supporter base. – jjdb Jun 2 '17 at 11:39
23

Here are a couple easy ones.

  1. Iraq occurred first, and the war in Iraq turned out to be, at the very least, quite unpopular. When the situation in Syria came up, many people were fed up with the idea of war and nation-building because of how Iraq went down. People didn't want Syria to turn into another Iraq.
  2. Russia supports Assad's government, and unlike any allies of Saddam, Russia can actually present a serious danger to the USA if we find ourselves at war with them.
  • 1
    Same Obama regime bombed Libya and ousted Gaddafi if my memory is working right? – Failed Scientist May 25 '16 at 0:31
  • 3
    @TalhaIrfan The US played a relatively minor role in the Lybia conflict. It wasn't spearheaded by the US like the Iraq conflict was – Sam I am May 25 '16 at 3:14
  • US army's boots are on the Syrian grounds now (politics.stackexchange.com/questions/11067/…). So where is American public's unpopularity/reaction? – Failed Scientist May 28 '16 at 3:36
  • @TalhaIrfan if you're correct "boots on the ground", clearly it's different degrees. The biggest public objection to Iraq was because of dead troops. Lesser but real objections were time the troupes were spending there and cost of the incursion and "what is there to gain?". Any US involvement in Syria is currently much smaller and US soldiers aren't on the front lines dying every week, so naturally, any objection is many times smaller. If the US went into Syria like they/we did in Iraq in 2001-2010, then you'd probably see a very similar, perhaps greater objection. Apples to Oranges. – userLTK Jun 8 '17 at 13:58
10

There is a significant backlash in the USA about the removal of Saddam Hussein. Note that of the last five major USA presidential candidates (Hillary Clinton; Donald Trump; Bernie Sanders; Ted Cruz; John Kasich), none now claims that removing Hussein was correct. Hillary Clinton is the closest, having voted in favor of the war resolution that lead to his removal. But even she has now said that that decision was incorrect.

Barack Obama ran against the Iraq war in 2008. It was one of the major issues that lead him to victory over Hillary Clinton then.

If you view the USA as monolithic, then you are correct. The two decisions are inconsistent. But the USA is not monolithic. In between the Iraq war and the Syria conflict, there was a regime change (via election). The George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations have different opinions on the proper use of force in international conflicts. Obama believes that Bush was wrong to depose Saddam Hussein. And he believes that he would be wrong to depose Bashar al-Assad.

The results in Libya, where he tried to take a middle path, have reinforced his opinions. Obama is against intervening in foreign revolutions. And there isn't much support for doing so in the US. People are more likely to criticize Obama for publicly supporting Assad's ouster and supporting local groups attempting it than to call for a more aggressive policy to effect it. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have been quite outspoken on this.

Note: none of this is to say that Assad is a better, more moral ruler than Hussein. The question is why there is different behavior. The primary reasons are changes in USA opinion in general and the specific differences between Bush and Obama. Comparisons between Assad and Hussein don't really come into it.

  • 1
    What a load of sutff! Obama tried to form an international coallition to directly militarily intervene in Syria similarly to how they did in Libya. The international coalition never materialized and is yet another example of deteriorating foreign policy directive in the united states. Obama has been funding and training armed militias within syria since the arab spring! it's a proxy conflict between US + Israel + Saudi Arabia against Russia + Iran. Syria is a cornerstone in an anti-American regional alliance. – hownowbrowncow May 24 '16 at 19:38
  • 1
    @hownowbrowncow Yes, that is discussed in the link that I provided. Obama did form an international coalition and then stopped. If you have a different citation please provide it. And it is absolutely true that Obama is supporting groups in Syria that are anti-Assad. But the point is that they aren't providing sufficient support to actually remove Assad. – Brythan May 25 '16 at 1:51
  • 3
    International opinion also undoubtedly played a part as well. A lot of goodwill and resources were (and still is being) expended by the Coalition during Iraq and Afghanistan, and, simply put, the traditional allies just weren't willing to get into another drawn out and costly conflict. America can't do it alone, and the support just wasn't there. That Assad wasn't threatening anything outside of Syria probably made the decision a bit easier to ignore – Thomo May 25 '16 at 9:02
3

Invading another country requires a UN Security Council resolution authorizing military force. The US took the position that UNSCR 1441 authorized invading Iraq. UNSCR 2009 was used to depose Gaddafi. The governments of Russia and China felt betrayed by difference between what they were told UNSCR 2009 was intended to do and what the results turned out to be. Consequently, they stated on multiple occasions that they would veto any and all Security Council Resolutions authorizing military force against the Syrian government.

Russia used to have a naval base in Libya, gone since Gaddafi was deposed and killed. Russia still has a naval base in Syria. This the last naval base that they have in the Mediterranean Sea. Consequently, they will not permit "regime change" in Syria without a fight.

0

Technically speaking, Iraq was in violation of treaty agreements signed by them with the US at the end of the first gulf war. That was the exact reason given for the invasion. Whether that invasion was a good idea or not is another matter entirely (obviously, it was not a good idea) - that was the exact reason given for the military action.

Syria is not in violation of agreements signed with the US, and US troops are not invading the country with the stated goal of bringing down the regime for failure to meet those agreements.

And we'd be well advised to keep troops out of Syria. Politically, it is a virtual clone of Iraq (without the oil)... a mixed population of Sunni and Shia aligned Alawites, who have been hating each other for centuries. Take out the brutal dictator that keeps them in check, and Syria would explode into violence... just like Iraq did. Not that Syria isn't exploding into violence already... it would get much worse if the current Syrian government was deposed.

Correction: the US did not start the Syrian rebellion. That was started internally after the 'Arab Spring' saw a relatively peaceful transition of power in Egypt. The Sunni in Syria thought they would use that as motivation to rise up against the governing Alawites. The US did fund some of the rebellion groups, including two that were to form ISIS. Oops. What bonehead was in charge of that faux pas?

Correction: Hussein did not use chem weapons on the Shia. He used them on the Kurds.

  • Just a note - being in violation of those agreements was cause to continue existing sanctions, not a full-on military invasion and occupation. But I don't see that you are necessarily espousing that position, just stating that it was the reason given, which is accurate. – PoloHoleSet Jun 7 '17 at 21:59
  • Syria is clearly in violation of agreements with the manufacture of and use of chemical weapons. If violation of agreements was the only criteria, then, consider the criteria met. I wouldn't call Syria a clone of Iraq either (without the oil). One of the disagreements regarding Syria is a natural gas pipeline from Qatar through Syria that the US and Europe want and Russia doesn't, The big differences with Syria is Russia is involved and Isis is more aggressive. The other difference is time. One could argue that Iraq and Libya were failures, so, why repeat a bad thing? – userLTK Jun 8 '17 at 13:52
  • Take out the brutal dictator that keeps them in check, and Syria would explode into violence That brutal dictator is the one who has killed 0.4-0.5Mn Syrians since Mar, 2011 and now invited Russia to join the party – Failed Scientist Jul 6 '17 at 12:30
-1

The world was different in the early 2000s. People were NOT scared of another WW2 (why would they it hasnt happened for 50 years then).

Today (after the war in Iraq) people know better. Especially with the entire Trump Russia scandal plaguing the US.

Removing ASSAD would require an emergency UN meeting and you know Russia will pose a VERY good argument against removing him citing 'where is the proof'.

Truth is, there is no proof besides hearsay on Media that Assad is doing these things (bombing his own people).

If the US goes in and removes ASSAD and a week later there is no proof that he was at fault (in court) it would finally remove US from a position of world influence once and for all (would be two failures now; Iraq and Syria)

  • Instead of WW2 you might say war with Russia, as that's more to the point. You're correct, there was very little fear of a war with Russia during the Iraq invasion, there's measurable fear of one if the US went into Syria. I wouldn't say "after Iraq" related to that. What was learned after the Iraq "mistake" was that displacing a dictator didn't guarantee democracy, nor a quick and easy incursion, nor even a better situation in the long run. Iraq taught us that replacing a government is complicated "who knew?". And Assad is without question, bombing his own people. It's a civil war. – userLTK Jun 8 '17 at 13:44
-3

First, Assad never was using chemical weapons.

Second, the anti-Assad rebellion was started by the United States before he could use any weapons (obviously). The reason why the US decided to destruct Libya and Syria, and bring Islamists to power in Egypt is unclear.

Third, the US possibly would have already deposed Assad if not the emergence of ISIS which is currently seen as a greater enemy.

  • 5
    I used to believe there would be some wise people here but unable to believe that an user with 3000+ reputation doesn't know such a basic thing (Assad using Chemical Weapons, Islamists in power in Egypt)?? – Failed Scientist May 24 '16 at 13:32
  • 5
    Have a look here for your Chemical Weapons answer: nybooks.com/articles/2013/11/21/… – Failed Scientist May 24 '16 at 13:33
  • 5
    3rd point is again invalid as Assad is killing much much more people than ISIS (Assad kills 50 innocent people on average to one killed by ISIS). Read HRW's Ex Director Kenneth Roth here: hrw.org/news/2015/08/05/… – Failed Scientist May 24 '16 at 13:34
  • 5
    I have provided references to support the point. If you have any in your point's defense, I would love to see them – Failed Scientist May 24 '16 at 13:53
  • 6
    I downvoted because this appears to be opinion. It would be believable if there were statements by policy officials stating that these were the reasons they did something. – indigochild May 24 '16 at 16:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.